Joseph E. Stiglitz states; "The only way Trump will square his promises of higher infrastructure and defense spending with large tax cuts and deficit reduction is a heavy dose of what used to be called voodoo economics. Decades of “cutting the fat” in government has left little to cut: federal government employment as a percentage of the population is lower today than it was in the era of small government under President Ronald Reagan some 30 years ago."

I contend this very misleading and only by bending statistics such as the total number of employees on the government's payroll can such a statement be made. Government has expanded into every facet of our lives. He is merely repeating a myth generated over decades. The article below argues Government is much bigger today!

It's too early to know what Trump will actually do or be able to do. In the meanwhile a little humility from a former economic advisor to the President who ripped up Glass Steagall is in order. I recognise Mr Stiglitz had stopped chairing the President's Council of Economic Advisors before that point but the neo-liberal pro Wall Street direction of the Clintons was pretty clear already. Hillary was planning more of the same before a large number of working class Democratic voters switched their vote to Trump to avoid history repeating itself. Stiglitz is a brillaint economist but is too parti pris as a commentator re Trump. As , frankly, is Project-Syndicate re both Trump and Brexit. The economic news out of the UK post Brexit is better than before by the way and the Bank of England has more or less apologised for its appallingly biased 'project fear' forecasts of doom if we had the temerity to vote to Leave the bankrupt EU. I suggest Project-Syndicate start finding contributors who are at least open-minded about the US under Trump or it too may be forced to swallow humble pie when things don't turn out as badly as slightly hysterical bien pensant intellectuals think

Significant reductions in taxes on capital income should result in more investment, all other things being equal. After all, there is a supply and demand curve for capital investment just as there is for consumer goods and services. The recovery has been notable for its below trend investment on the part of firms. If the Trump administration turns this around it will create more jobs and lead to more consumption. And then there are those Animal Spirits! As Keynes pointed out, businesses and entrepreneurs can scarcely predict the future out more than a few quarters. Their decisions to invest are based on wishful thinking - and on a mass basis a boom erupts!

Obama's battle against recession has been won but President elect Trump will snatch Obama's victory. Secular GDP growth and low-unemployment turned the corner in 1Q2015 continues with a modest 0.6% rise in GDP. How do pundits deal with a man who has a propensity to lie and mislead in order to take credit where credit is not due? This will be Trump's prominent theme: bad news is Clinton-Obama's fault but all good news is due to Trump's 'Making America Great Again' magical thinking. And voters don't care whose policies resulted in the late stage Obama economic recovery after Wall Street's TBTF institutions benefited from an era of Clinton-Greenspan Bubbleconomics and continued regulation busting under G.W. Bush' . As voters become more benign the challenges faced will be fending off the Barbarians at the Gates and Putin-style Oligarchy that Trump admires and seemingly favors based on his unusually positive characterization of Putin's political prowess.

The mechanism and machinations of government and the public sector will provide an underlying constant as it ticks along like the metronome its is. Indeed Trump's lack of consistency and at time completely authoritarian stance shall likely slow the pace of change rather than increase it as he continues to divide instead of building consensus.
Indeed the great Trump lie is one of implying that he will build consensus. After all that was the basis of his campaign..." sick of partisan politics, tired of the self entitled political class ...vote me I will get things working again and get you working again too."
Trump will no doubt ring hollow the great unknown is will his inexperience also bring incompetence and stagnation as he tries to get his way.
On domestic policy this is more likely.
Where the more radical authoritarian Trump may turn for some successes will be Foreign policy as President's generally have greater remit and latitude here with less input or oversight by Congress and the Senate.
So if there is a Tsunami coming for the US it will most likely come from offshore... so keep a weather eye both east and west America.

Plenty of good points covered here, as might be expected! BUT, I do think that given what we think we now know, the most consistent Trumpland danger is wholesale Protectionism. Amongst all the contradictions and hysterical rhetoric that has emerged from and about Trump the more consistent and superficially coherent theme is that of protectionism as a general vehicle of policy. It's important because it seems to be the one area that delivers something of an actual political economy framework for a New Republicanism. Attacking the Chinese system in particular will be seen by many Americans as appropriate and viscerally satisfying at the level of political declamation. At the economic level is may seem inevitable - the relatively open US trading system has now for some two generations acted as a driver of the global commercial system, and was certainly an element in the success of Japan from the 1970s, the NICS from the 1980s, and China at the present time. The foreign policy that wraps around the new approach is easy to lay out. Openness was all well and good under Cold War assumptions, when US bought allies through trade, aid, military expenditure and cultural suasion. But in Trumpian rhetoric that led to trade deficits, gifts of high tech to competitors, and the creation of a present global world in which US can be portrayed as a victim. Hoping that lower paid consumers will not realise that cheap imports from developing systems increased the spending power of their low incomes (such incomes themselves the product of an inefficient economic system that has yet to come under proper criticism), Trumpian politics can blame the hardships of lower and middle America on foreign competition and commercial aggression. The fact that good growth in the large new systems, especially in China, India and Brazil, has in recent years been a rare positive element in a global system that since 2008 has not in fact recovered from recession, is easily sidestepped within Trumpland itself by being cast as an epiphenomenon of that very American openness.
So Trump is substituting for the Neo-Liberalism that emerged out of the death of the Cold War a protectionism that could fire a real political conflict very speedily - the South China Sea and Taiwan are a real focus of concern for us all.
Finally it is particularly in matters of foreign conflict that the US Constitution and the much-vaunted Separation of Powers seem at their most problematic as systems of constraint. It may well be that in other areas Trump will simply change his mind, pull back or reverse, and in such areas the system of checks and balances might be of some efficacy. But in the area that might be of greatest concern to us all, including those of us on the other side of the pond, the constraints both of good public opinion in a strong culture of civil society and those emanating from the technical operations of the US democratic system might very well fail to constrain Trumpland.

Mauricio, I was referring Adam Smith on the rentier / wealth economic dilemma, not the monetary system. Regarding your opposition to the wealth tax, it looks to me more a prejudice than any economically grounded position, because why would anyone be against a wealth tax and be in favor of a tax on the generation of wealth?

Idle wealth is always counterproductive to the economy, especially when you are not in full employment and very far from the technology production limit; by the way wealth isn’t just money but other assets and resources.

I’m fully aware of the role of the financial and monetary system, namely on the separation on the savings and investment functions, but the problem we are facing, and faced on the great depression is directly linked with the increased risk aversion, or raise of liquidity preference, which increases the non planned savings and determines the demand shortage. Off course you can argue that liquidity and quasy liquidity isn’t idle wealth, because it’s going to be transformed into investment in the next interaction, the problem is that the increase in the liquidity preference will provoque a demand shock, and consequent product decrease.

If you prefer a more classic/monetary explanation, what I say with idle wealth is the decrease in money velocity we experience after the financial crisis, which in any practical terms is equal to a “forced” monetary tightening and consequent product decrease and deflation.

Now on Trumps spending binge …. If you are European, you are familiar with the last decade of PPP’s and private financing of public spending, which in any practical purpose is equal to the implementation of a Corporate Statism regime and to the generation of a rent to a few families… Actually there is a fundamental difference, because in the European case, the state couldn’t finance itself, while the US can finance himself at a 0% rate, which leads me to the conclusion that this is an ideological program, and calling for similarities between Trump and fascist (or corporate statism) regimes isn’t that out of order.

Now for sure there are many republican that are borderline fascists, but there are many, many more that reject any form of corporate statism and such blatant interference on the market mechanisms.

I disagree with the idea a huge majority of Americans are already suffering election regret. Over the last several years the "stop globalization" movement has gained support in developed countries across the world. The subject of globalization is made up of many threads interwoven in a complex way.

This discussion can include several issues such as, but not limited to, immigration and free trade. Other social concerns also feed into the mix, things like global warming, nationalism, inequality, even population growth. The article below explores this complex issue and questions whether it is justified.

Whatever the situation, Stiglitz always cries wolf. And on every occasion he suggests the wolf can be managed by ubertaxing the rich and print money into oblivion to "finance" pure malinvestment.
How come these tax-the-rich parroting "somas" (Greek) can never suggest any single efficient, moral hazard free, sustainable ideas, for the global good?
Why not suggesting a complete overhaul and transformation of the global institutions that are ruling the world since 1945? Theses institutions were put in place to avoid the problems leading to WWII. But today they are absolutely inefficient to help the international society.
Instead of taxing the successful people, why not effectively banning arms, drugs, religion, opening pharma patents (indeed all patents), redistributing commodities worldwide, making access to drinkable water and child education the first priority of society?
You see Mr Stiglitz, me too I can go on Pareto efficient brainstorming binge.
True that delivering one single laureate idea can help you personally make ends meet for your entire life. But if Society put you in such a distinguished pulpit (like a Nobel Prize among others) I am sure you and others like you could deliver a much greater militant push towards lifting quality of life for millions of people, specially the weaker ones.
Emmeline Pankhurst aimed high and effectively changed the world.

No one listened to you before and they will not listen now. All you so called economists do is talk about a surreal reality which is beyond the experiences of the 99%.
Please get a grip and stop bothering us with your platitudes.

The already painful conditions workers live and work in could only worsen as the global economic uncertainty in the coming year will naturally lead to cost cutting and saving in order to hedge against often little existing resources in the corporate and political systems as the coming year could lead to huge losses to uncertain trends in terms of financial resources as well across all sectors of society.

Look Professor Joseph Stiglitz, have American people serious considered US President-elect Donald Trump's 'waiving index and thumb fingers rim gesture' ; whenever he is making significant statement? What that gesture tells about his views of issues should ring bell in their ears. From his primary campaigns within GOP to finishing national presidential campaign wit Hilary, President-elect Trump does not take broader view of issues.
For example, he did not see any other side of Hilary but "Crocked Hilary" till the end on November 8, 2016. And many much more. Even right now, he thinks is running a company, a thinking which should not be so again after that eventful November 8 2016 sleepless night for many around the globe.
Thanks for good commentary .

Oh by the way, November 13 - 18, 2016, I was at the WTO in Geneva, Switzerland. I bought a Copy of "The Great Divide" in the WTO Bookshop for souvenir, which I am reading.

I mean most of us outside United States appear to have better views of your President-elect 2016 than most do within.

And another propagandistic view of Mr. Stiglitz. Democrats (Obama) good, Republicans bad!
One may like or dislike Trump but he hasn't been a single day in office and now he is already blamed for everything that's going on on this planet and for everything that might be one day.
Mr. Stiglit should retire.

This article does little to provide the reader with any political or economic insight. It is a strikingly weak piece offered by a far left ideologue reminiscent of the Nazi fear tactics utilized by the far left against a very decent Barry Goldwater in 1964. When your political arguments fails play the Nazi card seems the tactic of the left. This article is not written to persuade anyone not already in agreement with Professor Stiglitz. I will remind the professor that in some circles his words are seen as "deplorable" and that similar tactics helped set the stage for the Reagan revolution in 1980, a short 16 years after Goldwater's run for the presidency.. It is also ironic that Professor Stiglitz is contemptuous of Nazi propagandists while championing far left propaganda throughout the entire article. I assume selective propaganda is ok. The article condemns what it sees as extremism but employs the extremism of fear to make its case. Wow!

OMG! We are all doomed. It wold challenge Dr. Stiglitz to indicate how one can deal with the rule of the robber barons. Alas, he has nothing to say other than be prepared for gloom and doom.

One consideration is that the jobs lost since the Great Recession were largely semi-skilled industrial jobs, and many of those created during the Obama "recovery" are unskilled jobs in the service sector. Therefore, the potential for improved labour market conditions lies in the demand for the sorts of jobs lost, subject, of course the the skill levels of job seekers.

Another consideration is that if the cost of components in the industrial supply chain rises due to the imposition of tariffs, the cost of output rises and the potential for substituting domestic production for imports increases. Isn't that a reason for tariffs? Moreover, revenue from the tariff might be available to fund domestic infrastructure projects. Remember Hamilton! Remember Henry Clay's National Policy of internal improvements funded by tariffs. Bring on the Tariff of Abominations!

Right on, as usual — if only the workers whose future is Professor Stiglitz’s topic could take it one step further and on to the fundamental truth of capitalism, namely that capitalism thrives on inequality, i.e., the gap between rich and poor. Just ask the people of China and Mexico and Bangladesh and the several other countries where workers work for an ever smaller fraction of what blue-collar Americans earned before it was permissible for American factories to chase the lowest possible wage environment on the planet. The only thing that can stop this race to the bottom in the name of competitive advantage is a wage rate of zero — and hi-technology is working on that. But those robots will never have the purchasing power to match that of the consumers of yesteryear — i.e., 70 percent of GDP.

This is not the 1930s and ‘40s, when Depression and war and FDR could actually get the war-profiteering US industrial class to fork over a phenomenal percentage of their profits to the state. Today, no such situation could obtain, for if an administration should even think too loudly about raising taxes on the wealthy, the wealthy would merely shift more personal wealth to the Caymens along with the head offices of their corporations where they would be out of the reach of the tax collector. A president with access to the public purse (or, more accurately, a still relatively healthy credit rating) may succeed in bribing a corporation not to outsource jobs at one particular factory, providing the president ignores the fact that the corporation will only shift the job outsourcing to another one of its American-based factories (e.g., Carrier). But that is more or less the limit of the president’s power to halt the widening of the wealth gap.

Since Washington, seat of empire, is notorious for not learning from history and not listening to anyone or any country that may have a better idea — e.g., “We’re not Denmark,” said Hillary in response to Bernie (“pity,” said I) — it will continue down this merry road to ruin, followed by all of its vassal states tied to the tail of America’s sinking star.

Economists are loathe to admit that "free trade" is merely a euphemism for exploiting labour on a world scale. One is surprised that a notorious globalization skeptic, such as Stiglitz, becomes an apologist for the most pernicious aspect of classical economics - Ricardian free trade.

Why not a revenue tariff on Gucci bags and a luxury tax to add onto it? Why not a discount (oops, subsidy) on domestically produced products? Where the will is strong, the ways are clear.

If currency controls gave China such a disadvantage why the original economic success? Whilst going overboard on Tariffs to the extent Trump suggests would indeed be self defeating, unilateral trade barrier disarmament is surely bad as well. The best of both worlds it to play the Chinese game back and insist that these non trade barriers are removed...or there will be a need for a response. Even then an indirect game of better treaties with every other country to compensate would be superior - so China saw lower value added business going to India, Phillipines, Vietnam etc. `Hopefully Trump will show the ability to play a better poker game than some of his economist critics, whilst still listening to the strategic objective of following Adam Smith.

Right on, as usual — if only the workers whose future is Professor Stiglitz’s topic could take it one step further and on to the fundamental truth of capitalism, namely that capitalism thrives on inequality, i.e., the gap between rich and poor. Just ask the people of China and Mexico and Bangladesh and the several other countries where workers work for an ever smaller fraction of what blue-collar Americans earned before it was permissible for American factories to chase the lowest possible wage environment on the planet. The only thing that can stop this race to the bottom in the name of competitive advantage is a wage rate of zero — and hi-technology is working on that. But those robots will never have the purchasing power to match that of the consumers of yesteryear — i.e., 70 percent of GDP.

This is not the 1930s and ‘40s, when Depression and war and FDR could actually get the war-profiteering US industrial class to fork over a phenomenal percentage of their profits to the state. Today, no such situation could obtain, for if an administration should even think too loudly about raising taxes on the wealthy, the wealthy would merely shift more personal wealth to the Caymens along with the head offices of their corporations where they would be out of the reach of the tax collector. A president with access to the public purse (or, more accurately, a still relatively healthy credit rating) may succeed in bribing a corporation not to outsource jobs at one particular factory, providing the president ignores the fact that the corporation will only shift the job outsourcing to another one of its American-based factories (e.g., Carrier). But that is more or less the limit of the president’s power to halt the widening of the wealth gap.

Since Washington, seat of empire, is notorious for not learning from history and not listening to anyone or any country that may have a better idea — e.g., “We’re not Denmark,” said Hillary in response to Bernie (“pity,” said I) — it will continue down this merry road to ruin, followed by all of its vassal states tied to the tail of America’s sinking star.

It appears Trump is going to get a damn fine economy that is set to produce and grow nicely. What he does with it is highly likely to be incredibly stupid and our best hope is he doesn't overdo it. I have a few questions for all the economic geniuses that believe Trump is going to be the great job creator?

His basic approach is to cut taxes to put more money in the pockets of businessmen and investors. It sounds very much like Kansas' current economic plan, is it?

Will it be a revenue neutral by bracket plan or a revenue neutral to the government over the full range of brackets?

Will it make changes to major deductions or tax credits that may change the entire economy's direction? Best example is Reagan's elimination of the passive loss deduction at the height of the recreational timeshare property business.

Considering that businesses maxed profits for about three years during the middle of the recovery (2011-2014) and after spending all of it they could no stock buybacks had to put it in savings. No place to invest it. What happened to that 2+ trillion that was still in business savings earlier this year?

If businesses have somehow spent all that money foolishly then why not hit the banks up. They have been recapitalized are are able and ready to lend. Why aren't businesses already expanding since they've been hiring?

Does it not seem odd that hiring has been brisk, in my area, all the fast food places have hiring signs up as do many of the other stores, but there doesn't seem to be that much economic growth. Why aren't these businesses growing and expanding?

Do you think the problem might be not enough business to presage growth, but just enough to cause some hiring?

Could it be none of these new hires are spending , buying anything more than the bare necessities, no cars or big TVs or new cell phones or game consoles?

Do you think it's a problem with investment, not enough funding available for paying for opening new businesses or expanding current ones? What about the banks?

OR,

Do you think there is a shortage of demand? Both in consumer purchases and lending for investment?

I've heard and read here a pretty good gamut of what's going on with the economy and why it hasn't grown faster over the past 7 years and about 5% has been accurate. Most lack accuracy in analysis or the view of the economic occurrence. We have substituted data gathering for observation when they should be compatible parts. Answer the questions if you think you know, but don't give me crap about the Fed or the BEA or the labor dept because that's where most of the data comes from. If you want to claim it's bogus for some reason then don't bother.

Defense spending should be funded by progressive income tax, not by government borrowing, per Adam Smith. Infrastructure can be funded according to Smith by taxation, since infrastructure should have a benefit to the public.

Regarding infrastructure, I agree that infrastructure will be tough, but let's not forget Trump is not some do nothing college professor. When the city could not get the Wolman ice skating rink in Central Park built, and ditto the golf course in the Bronx on land reclaimed after a garbage dump was filled up, they called on Trump to do the job, which he did under budget and in record time. Trump is not a college professor like Obama. He gets thing done. He is a wealth creator, a doer not talker and writer. His biggest problems and the biggest problem for the American worker is that the Looney Left will do everything in their power to make certain that Trump does not succeed. It's people like JS that American workers should be fearful of and the media, which is totally corrupt.

It's absurd to bring up the popular vote as being lost by Trump as having any relevance. I am certain there were millions of Republicans in blue state who did not vote because they knew from the get go that their state would vote overwhelmingly for Clinton. The same is also true for Democrats living in red states. Where the vote would have turned out if there was no electoral college is pure conjecture. If you looked at the map of the U.S. by blue and red counties. the country is overwhelmingly red, except for some large populated cities.

What is for certain is that the 4.6% unemployment rate is a bogus number because it does not count people who have given up looking for work. The worker participation rate sucks, but let's just ignore that number because it does not help the Left's narrative. While the 3.2% growth rate may look impressive to a college professor who has never created a dime of wealth in his life, it is far less than what U.S. business is capable of once unshackled by mountains of needless rules and regulation that hinder wealth creations at best and destroys wealth at it worst.

"Trump has argued that the Fed should raise interest rates. The Fed, which took the first step toward normalization in early December, will almost certainly deliver – and Trump will soon regret what he wished for. " Savers will not regret the raise -- long overdue.

It seems to me that the chickens have just elected the Fox to guard their coop.

What has created the "Trump’s angry, displaced Rust Belt voters" is the inequality brought about the trickle down economy championed by Thatcher & Reagan which, over time, has seen unbridled capitalism chase profits and hoodwink regulators and administrations with the promise that this would lead to greater revenues and hence The State being better equipped to meet its social contract it forged with the population it was meant to represent.

Unfortunately that was a bare lie because the low tax regimes in the US and the UK spread world-wide and it was accompanied by the creation of tax heavens, complex financial instruments and other 'clever schemes' that saw all participating States go into debts and a slow but constant decrease in the service States provided to its citizens.

The result has been a steep accumulation of wealth by the 1% of the population and a growing inequality gap. To counter that we have had 'distractions' and 'entertainment' by the likes of Berlusconi, Trump, Islamophobia, terrorism, and fake news.

Further, in the Occident the ruling political classes, thanks to the powerful lobbying by Right Wing Think-Tanks, e.g. Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, has convinced its poorer classes that any attempts to redress the growing imbalance, e.g. initiatives in Health and Education to benefit those that have been left behind, is a Communist plot and hence this very large section of the community, often the least educated, have either supported Conservative parties or have withdrawn from the political process convinced that they do not have the power to change the political system, a problem most prevalent in the US where 40% of eligible voters did not vote.

Donald Trump and his businesses have been amongst the primary beneficiaries of the 'trickle down economy' and the pro-business set of laws, e.g. bankruptcy laws, that has disadvantaged EXACTLY the group of people displaced by this greed-on-steroid economy setting.

You would need to be very naïve, indeed very stupid, to believe that a person like Trump, who is surrounding himself with like-minded plutocrats beneficiaries of the trickle down economy, will do anything of real substance to change the economic trajectory of the people that Reaganomics has left behind.

In this article, Joseph is pointing out the inevitable truth. How long will this "big lie" last depends on how clever Trump & Co will be able to disguise, entertain and distract the true intent of his Administration.

History has shown that you ignore the physics governing Pendulum at your peril. The abuses of the French aristocracy and their refusal to pay taxes brought France to its knees and gave us the French Revolution which replaced a Devine King with an Emperor, the Russian Tars were replaced by a similarly oppressive Communism.

It's undeniable that the more in the Occident we push to the Right, the more violent will be a swing to the Left. It will be just a matter of time ... and rapid climate change combined with nationalist fervours, and rampant greed by the elite will accelerate this event.

In electing Trump, all the US voters have done is accelerating that process. Thanks!!

I submit that an economy is socialist when total government benefits paid to households exceeds total dividends received by households. This has been true of the USA from 1945 to the present day. 1968-2003, Social Security benefits alone exceeded dividends received by households. This will resume being the case by 2020 or so.

ObamaCare is a turgid and impractical mess, not a careful balancing act. The hard reality of massive adverse selection will sink it. ObamaCare utterly fails a pragmatism test that Medicare for all easily passes.

The bad news for America's workers is as follows. Let Y = Gross National Factor Income. The first figure in each row below is wages/ Y, the second is (Cost of employee benefits)/Y.

1970 56 7.5
2000 50 11
2015 46 11

1970-2000, the 6 percentage point decline in the share of Y made up of wages was partly offset by more generous fringe benefits. But 2000-15, the share of wages continued to decline, with no offsetting rise whatsoever in the generosity of fringe benefits. BTW, wages includes executive bonuses and the enormous compensation of Wall Street bankers and the like. If investment banking and people ranked EVP or higher in any industry, were excluded from these data, these calculations would be even more striking.

How did Stiglitz become a laureate? Besides being a political wacko, he has never understood the business cycle enough to be able to forecast a recession well in advance, or even as they have just started.

Well isn't it what actually a nice communist wants? After all globalization is nothing else but take the wealth of the rich countries and give it to the poor. And in the countries do the same take the wealth from anyone who makes more than Jose and give it to the poorer.
So if Trump wants to stop the wealth and the jobs that could create it taken from the usa he is a náci but of course that leaves Stiglitz a stalinist and when you check which one killed more it's about the same.
And just one economic input.when Obama had an average 1.2 trillion deficit spending a year and that is more than 5 percent of the gdp and got back less than 3 percent gdp growth that is an actual recession.
The truth Stiglitz become a propagandists for globalist idiologies and that is a communist system in the grand scale.
Taxation is for social economic benifits like schools roads and others that the society norm dictates.
Taxation can never fix a problem that caused by wrong economic policies just like freetrade and the globalist agendas.

Stiglitz presents a hopeless view. I voted for Trump to give functioning Capitalism a last gasp chance, with the alternative being "Socialism Now!" under the Democrat alternative.
Am well aware the Trump agenda is likely to fail, and with the Working Class in an uproar a return to a Democrat Administration in 2020 - and the institution of irreversible Socialism at that point in time. But there would be one big difference in the 2020 election and the 2016 election - Centrism (Globalism for the Rich; Socialism for Everybody Else) is officially dead, so we will be looking at a Sanders style Socialism in 2020, not Hillary Centrism - and a populist onslaught against Wall Street as the single culprit.

So many public intellectuals are making judgements on the base of very few actual announced Trump policies!
OK, Project Syndicate columnists mostly do not like Mr Trump. But there he is, the elected disruptor - or, we can hope, innovator.
What does it serve to go on denigrating him at such volume ? I doubt his team is taking any notice at all of the cacophony being thrown at them. The risk is that they circle the wagons and ignore even constructive criticism.
Wouldn't it be better to tell the Trump team constructively how the President should do good from his own alt right political perspective ?
Like work with China to insist for both sides on balanced trade, rather than 45% tariffs. Work intensively with Mexico to patrol and interdict along the borders, instead of a great south west wall. Work with the Fed to create a big infrastructure fund, so he can forget about putting tolls on everything new to pay for public-private partnerships. Work with Nato allies to ensure that they all pay the 2% - no need to threaten, they all know he has the right to ask.

As I've read through the thread of comments, I believe most agree with the logic here. There are at least two doubters, of this logic, that compelled me to reply. This analysis is spot on for two reasons. First, the so called tax cuts (corporate & the highest income earners) must either mean cuts in services, or a corresponding increase in taxes to middle class workers. Go right ahead and cut services to Trump supporters (you reap what you've sowed). Such revenue that the country relies on won't just magically appear. Second, with higher interest rates, and ultimately higher taxes and inflation; consumption will erode. To Mr. Islam Sheikh & Mr. Rutlededge (your responses above merited this), GDP can be calculated as such: C+I+G+( X-M)... That C is consumption and represents 2/3's of our GDP under the expenditure approach! There's no guarantee that there will be massive tax cuts for businesses that business gross investment will soar... That's what the I in the formula represents. G is for government spending. If the so-called GOP wants to increase government spending, they will infuriate those who sent them to power. Finally (X-M) is net exports... Tell me how a rising dollar will impact our ability to export... Professor Stieglitz absolutely nailed it and this article should be shared far and wide!

Only the .1% and the anarchists have reason to happy that Trump won.
The .1% firmly believe that their share of GDP will increase.
The anarchists also believe this, but hope that rising inequality will lead to societal breakdown and the revolution they eed.
The masses of Trump voters (and all those who did not vote) chose to give the finger to business as usual. There is nothing in Trump for them.

Prof. Stiglitz foretells the likely "buyers remorse" of Trump voters .In addition, the Trump Organization has been assessed by the social and environmental audit firm MHCInternational ( Geneva, London,Washington DC ) with the lowest score ever recorded in their 20 years of such research on corporate accountability .

From an institutional framework of Checks and Balances, Trump's presidency will marked by scandals involving "Cheques and Balances" (Cheques for gross graft and corruption with illegal Bank account balances in tax havens").

Dr. Joseph E. Stiglitz says "what have we learned about the likey direction" and then he say "to be sure"...the lies are simply visible and this is scare-tactic by George Soros and his puppets. We have seen how one (1) trillion dollar return to wall-street in recent days; and if there were no hope- one single Japanese investor would not pledge a 50 billion dollar investment in USA if he saw uncertainties in future. "Third-quarter GDP growing at an impressive annual rate of 3.2% and unemployment at 4.6%" ...these figures are standard manipulations. The real truth are ahead of us and there are no reason to be fearful about.

There's an upside for the Japanese investor for investing $50B as he is owner of the Sprint and wants to merge it with T-Mobile and they only way that can happen is through changes in the DOJ anti trust division allowing that to go through as the current one rejected it. It plans do it with $100B sovereign fund because it has too much debt on its books.

I have no problem with the eco-political establishment destroying themselves by continuing to double down on such viewpoints. Its their right. Just ask former economist Paul Krugman and the left wing media for instructions on how its done.

I read articles from the "experts" with a heavy dose of skepticism these days. And not without good reason. Stiglitz considers the Carrier deal a "Pyrrhic" victory because it'll cost the government $7 mn in taxes.
First of all the 7 mn will be in the form of tax rebates over the next 10 years. This brings the "cost" to $700k/yr
A quick calculation based on info sourced online indicates that the income tax and social security payments of an average manufacturing job comes to $7100/yr. The 800 jobs the deal has secured contribute $5.7mn/yr in income tax & social security payments. Plus of course the tax generated when the salaries of those workers circulate. Some might argue that those workers will find other jobs and will continue paying taxes. The average salary in the retail sector is half the industrial one - and that is if they are lucky to find full time jobs.
Need I say more?

The usual suspects within the economic mainstream media are starting to parrot here and there that Trump will be a repeat of Reagan economic policies. Houston, if this is true, we have a problem.
When the objective is the same, but the starting points are not only different but opposed by several orders of magnitude, the end result can not possibly repeat that of the 80's.
However, there are remarkable similarities at the emotional level if we compare 1981 to 2017. Reagan had been preceded by 4 Presidents in 17 years where the image of the US had deteriorated measurably both internally and abroad, and society was fed up of peddlers, losers, and a complete lack of leadership.
Trump is been preceded by 16 years of dumb policies at all levels by blah politicians and a complete lack of verifiable international leadership (today UN voting is a shame on long term foreign US policy).

An overly pessimistic view of an incoming administration. Trump has defied all kinds of predictions and analysis and who knows, he may just defy yours as well good ole Prof. Personally I wish Hillary had won the elections but on second thought I think there should be a shake up of the system once and for all and perhaps Trump may just make that shake up possible.

The bias throughout the piece makes it almost unreadable, even if I agree with most of what Stieglitz is saying. How can you sign off the article mentioning human rights, when standing firmly in Camp Obama, you are supporting a President who vetoed the version of the TPP that would have made slavery illegal? The problem with Stiglitz is he is still partisan...in a world where the only people with clean hands are independents.

Is it really necessary to compare Trump to the Nazi's at the top of the piece? We are all aware of what the potential threat is...but you call wolf too many times before the real danger comes, and people won't hear you when it matters most. Save your ammo.

While I agree with a mostl of Mr. Stieglitz's points, and his thinking in general, I must say that there are too many points, and some of them, the Putin paragraph, needs deeper analysis. The claims about Obamacare ought to be given some support.
There may be a need to catalog the promises and the problems that may arise, but practically all of Mr. Trump's proposals are incredibly vague; part of the intuitive style of mentation that goes along so well on the internet, a new art form perhaps. a new way of experiencing the world, some of his admirers seem to say. And so I find myself questioning the wisdom of wasting so many words on concepts that are so ill-defined. Better, it seems, to wait and see what transpires.

New Comment

Pin comment to this paragraph

After posting your comment, you’ll have a ten-minute window to make any edits. Please note that we moderate comments to ensure the conversation remains topically relevant. We appreciate well-informed comments and welcome your criticism and insight. Please be civil and avoid name-calling and ad hominem remarks.

Log in/Register

Please log in or register to continue. Registration is free and requires only your email address.

Log in

Register

Emailrequired

PasswordrequiredRemember me?

Please enter your email address and click on the reset-password button. If your email exists in our system, we'll send you an email with a link to reset your password. Please note that the link will expire twenty-four hours after the email is sent. If you can't find this email, please check your spam folder.